W7 is "Vista Ultimate 6.1 Ultimate Edition Build 7000"

[indymike]

XP was just a modified Win2000?

Yes....rather built on the 2000NTFS technology w/ enhancements and improvements over the years.

7 is Partially Vista but NOT Vista at all either.

Let's face it if 7 was Vista ALL Vista apps would pretty much work on it which plain and simply do not. There are several changes which we don't have enough information on to form a hypothesis on which is all most of it is at this point.

Chris Perillo who is an advid Vista hater w/ some good reason tried the 7 Beta build 7000 and was quite impressed by it. Time will tell. From my limited experience in the field I feel this will prove to be a winner and will definitely have my purchase as soon as it's available.

7 also has some technology from server2003 as well.

Vista never did for businesses or I.T. pro's. I have owned every version of windows and Vista has fundemental flaws which proved it not beneficial enough to justify busnesses transitioning to it hense the quick turn to 7 by microsoft. I don't care that they have sold millions mainly b/c of pre-installed force feeding on newly built PC's or the desperate last attempt at marketing through mojave to get a few more people on it.

Microsoft needs the big businesses to migrate to a new O.S. platform which the I.T. guys and gal's won't endorse till they are sure there are proven benefit's to along w/ equal if not improved stability. This is a huge part of microsofts sales portfollio and one Vista never hit and never will....hense we now have 7 to be released soon.

I do work on servers and businesses pretty regularly and businesses are running XP and servers (most) server2003. Vista is non existent from what I've seen on any of them.

XP is easy for many simply because it has been around for so long the support and software availability is abundant plus is't common and easy which is what most want.

I think change is great I just want more proven reliability equal if not better then 2000 or Xp out of 7 which I think we will get.

 

[newly]

well said.

 

[I2aMpAnT]

Yes....rather built on the 2000NTFS technology w/ enhancements and improvements over the years.

7 is Partially Vista but NOT Vista at all either.

Let's face it if 7 was Vista ALL Vista apps would pretty much work on it which plain and simply do not. There are several changes which we don't have enough information on to form a hypothesis on which is all most of it is at this point.

Chris Perillo who is an advid Vista hater w/ some good reason tried the 7 Beta build 7000 and was quite impressed by it. Time will tell. From my limited experience in the field I feel this will prove to be a winner and will definitely have my purchase as soon as it's available.

7 also has some technology from server2003 as well.

Vista never did for businesses or I.T. pro's. I have owned every version of windows and Vista has fundemental flaws which proved it not beneficial enough to justify busnesses transitioning to it hense the quick turn to 7 by microsoft. I don't care that they have sold millions mainly b/c of pre-installed force feeding on newly built PC's or the desperate last attempt at marketing through mojave to get a few more people on it.

Microsoft needs the big businesses to migrate to a new O.S. platform which the I.T. guys and gal's won't endorse till they are sure there are proven benefit's to along w/ equal if not improved stability. This is a huge part of microsofts sales portfollio and one Vista never hit and never will....hense we now have 7 to be released soon.

I do work on servers and businesses pretty regularly and businesses are running XP and servers (most) server2003. Vista is non existent from what I've seen on any of them.

XP is easy for many simply because it has been around for so long the support and software availability is abundant plus is't common and easy which is what most want.

I think change is great I just want more proven reliability equal if not better then 2000 or Xp out of 7 which I think we will get.

I don't believe Vista ever meant to be a server OS?
As for businesses. Vista always worked best for me with little to no problems because I always had new hardware. Most buisnesses don't want to buy whole new computers just for a "better" OS.

 

[Ezekiel]

I must say for a beta OS, I am very impressed. I am also impressed that MS was confident enough to release the beta to the public.

 

[Johnfalc]

We're all on the Windows NT evolution - regardless of the marketing names - that doesn't mean there won't be good, bad, fair and great releases. A lot of us were surprised when MS changed the name of Windows NT 5 to Windows 2K during the beta program. Just looking the versions of some stuff here at the house confirms that W2K was 5.0, XP was 5.1, W2K3, was 5.2, Vista is 6.0, and (at least now) W7 is 6.1. There's corroboration and additional information here CodeGuru: Determine Windows Version and Edition

 

[Romulinx2]

Actually, Vista is the built-from-scratch OS, and Windows 7 is built on that foundation created by Vista.

That's why it took 7 years to go from XP to Vista, but only 2 years to go from Vista to 7...

Yes exactly, Vista was the basic structure to begin with. Then they stripped it down and streamlined it.

 

[Alastria]

XP was just a modified Win2000?

Windows PC's have only ever had two kernels. The first was DOS/9x kernel, dating back to the beginning. The last version of it was Windows ME (good riddance).

The other kernel was NT, which everything now is based on. MS hasn't built a completely new kernel from scratch since NT in 1993. "Windows" is like 25 million lines of code, so there's no way to rebuild it every 3-5 years. They've simply been building onto the NT kernel for the last 16 years, and the latest version of that is Seven.

 

[arkhi]

^True that. In a way, they're just modifying/improving their OS's since Win95

 

[JerzeyLegend]

Too bad. I always thought Windows 7 was going to be NT 7.0, and they were just using 6.1 for beta reasons.

Snow Leopard is getting a complete kernel overhaul, and 64 bit down to the core. I think Windows deserves the same treatment.

I know there are still people running old PC's but it's time we start moving into the future.

 

[Alastria]

Too bad. I always thought Windows 7 was going to be NT 7.0, and they were just using 6.1 for beta reasons.

Snow Leopard is getting a complete kernel overhaul, and 64 bit down to the core. I think Windows deserves the same treatment.

I know there are still people running old PC's but it's time we start moving into the future.

First, whether they call it "6.1" or "7.0" doesn't matter. Programmers know that the version number you give it is largely meaningless. I mean, the first version of the NT kernel was not 1.0 .. it was 3.1, simply because Windows 3.1 was out at the time they made it. If they want to call this new version of Windows "Strawberries", then they can.

And modern OS's can't really "get an overhaul", because they're so massive and must have fixes released quickly. It's like trying to repair a jet engine while the plane's in the air. Now, to be sure there are sections that can be optimized and overhauled, but an overhaul of an entire OS like Windows or OSX would probably take a decade.

And finally, Windows 7 can't be 64-bit only, becuase they want it to run on netbooks. Intel Atom processors are 32-bit only.

 

[johnwillyums]

Underwhelmed

I have a reasonably powerful midrange system and I am distinctly not wowed by W7.
I'm running a [email protected], 4Gb of 1066Mhz, GTX 260 Black Edition on an Asus P5Q pro.
I really cant see any improvement between my 64 bit Vista and 64 bit W7 in terms of performance.
There are some nice touches like the snap to windows etc. but nothing amazing.
Obviously it's early days but this feels like Vista Lite or a Service Pack for people with netbooks.
It's just not as lush as Vista and looks a bit sparse imo.
This is nothing like as radical as XP Sp 2. That felt more like a new OS than this does.
Also I believe there is a Vista Sp 2 due soon.
I can see people on netbooks running W7 and gamers and media types sticking with Vista.
I sweat blood getting my dual boot going after several false starts and, as I say, underwhelmed.
Best wishes, John